• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
It would be nice if they did have a program for low income people to get money for heating in the winter. Not just Native Americans, but for all the citizens in North Dakota.

Oh wait, they do that already...
"The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program helps people with lower incomes to pay their heating/energy bills during the fall, winter and spring months. County social service offices around the state take applications for the program and decide how much help each household can get to pay their heating bills. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is administered by the North Dakota Department of Human Services."

Of course, that doesn't make Republicans any less evil, just points out there is more evil available if they cancel the program.

Should I tell you that LIHEAP has nothing to do with the State of North Dakota, that it's a federal program and that ND simply administers to it? The program's been around for almost forty years - started under a Dem.
 
Should I tell you that LIHEAP has nothing to do with the State of North Dakota, that it's a federal program and that ND simply administers to it? The program's been around for almost forty years - started under a Dem.

Yes, you should. So long as I get to repeat that such a program, which directly answers the challenge, actually exists. I'm happy to hear it's been in existence for 40 years.

I'm puzzled at this pairing: "nothing to do with the State of North Dakota" and "ND simply administers it." That's what governments do, administer. They spend a lot of time and resources doing so. I hope they do a good job of it and get the money to the freezing Indians who need it.
 
Yes, you should. So long as I get to repeat that such a program, which directly answers the challenge, actually exists. I'm happy to hear it's been in existence for 40 years.

I'm puzzled at this pairing: "nothing to do with the State of North Dakota" and "ND simply administers it." That's what governments do, administer. They spend a lot of time and resources doing so. I hope they do a good job of it and get the money to the freezing Indians who need it.

Well, that's mighty big of you to give them credit for administering. ND is a "taker" state. It's federal money raised from OTHER STATES. Sorta like Ron Paul running against earmarks and then putting in two dozen of his own. Red States rate waaaaaay up there in taking block grants and then taking credit for them.
 
Well, that's mighty big of you to give them credit for administering. ND is a "taker" state. It's federal money raised from OTHER STATES. Sorta like Ron Paul running against earmarks and then putting in two dozen of his own. Red States rate waaaaaay up there in taking block grants and then taking credit for them.

In either case, what does it mean for the allegation that the Republican governor of North Dakota isn't helping Indians with their winter heating needs?

Isn't the important thing that the need is being addressed? It seems disingenuous to blame the Governor for something he didn't do, especially if the program has been up and running for so long.

What's next, blame the Governor for winter?

I don't really support the state government of North Dakota, but if someone makes an allegation, the skeptic in me may question it. I did. That specific allegation has no merit.

ETA: The "taker" label doesn't mean much, considering the Standing Rock Sioux receives grant money (to the tune of a half million dollars in 2012, I don't have current figures) from tribes that have casinos. Are they now "takers"?
 
Last edited:
In either case, what does it mean for the allegation that the Republican governor of North Dakota isn't helping Indians with their winter heating needs?

Isn't the important thing that the need is being addressed? It seems disingenuous to blame the Governor for something he didn't do, especially if the program has been up and running for so long.

What's next, blame the Governor for winter?

I don't really support the state government of North Dakota, but if someone makes an allegation, the skeptic in me may question it. I did. That specific allegation has no merit.

ETA: The "taker" label doesn't mean much, considering the Standing Rock Sioux receives grant money (to the tune of a half million dollars in 2012, I don't have current figures) from tribes that have casinos. Are they now "takers"?

The root for that is "allege". You alleged that the Republicans are doing great things for their citizens in North Dakota. I was impressed and went to look it up, thinking, "Maybe the Republicans aren't all like Brownback and Pence and sticking it to their citizens by cutting programs."

I'm merely pointing out that it ain't ND GOP largesse. It's federal money. Block Grants which probably also pay for the staff. They're simply dealing out the program. I checked and there's nothing separately in the ND regulations that provides for heat assistance. The only program on their own website is the Federal one.

I have no problem with the Standing Rock Sioux being "takers". I'm not a conservative and I believe in spreading the wealth around if there is any. In fact, I have nothing against ND getting federal money; I'd just prefer they don't do like the other red states and line up at the trough, all the while talking about how much they're against federal over-reach.
 
The governor could give a **** about the Native Americans out there, and they've roundly rejected his concern and requested he stuff it in his ass. The core of the people have lived here for their entire lives, they don't need daddy dumbass to watch over them. They certainly aren't getting a blizzard out there. I think it might be a couple inches of snow and a bit of wind. That's a hoot. He's using it as an excuse to get people out of the way so they can finish the project that put cash in his pocket.

Personally, he can eat a dick.
 
The root for that is "allege". You alleged that the Republicans are doing great things for their citizens in North Dakota. I was impressed and went to look it up, thinking, "Maybe the Republicans aren't all like Brownback and Pence and sticking it to their citizens by cutting programs."

Perhaps you misunderstood. I was responding to an allegation, not making one. Here is the post I was responding to:
If this were actually the motive, every winter the good governor would be offering his Native American neighbors financial support for warming homes, many of which have no electricity. Yet again, the brave US white boy needs a fig leaf, not for shame, but for appearances. Dunno about any other claims, but Republicans have a lock on world class rationalization.

I was rejecting the notion that Republicans are somehow connected to Indians who get cold in the winter.

I'm merely pointing out that it ain't ND GOP largesse. It's federal money. Block Grants which probably also pay for the staff. They're simply dealing out the program. I checked and there's nothing separately in the ND regulations that provides for heat assistance. The only program on their own website is the Federal one.

Correct. And the program manager says they have enough funds to do the job.

I have no problem with the Standing Rock Sioux being "takers". I'm not a conservative and I believe in spreading the wealth around if there is any. In fact, I have nothing against ND getting federal money; I'd just prefer they don't do like the other red states and line up at the trough, all the while talking about how much they're against federal over-reach.

In this case, I'm happy they are taking the money. That particular branch of the tribe is in dire straights with something like 20% under the poverty line and 60% of their income from government employment. They aren't going to go anywhere without some real change.

I am not really prepared to argue for the Republican platform or agenda. I don't see this in terms of a Republican vs. Democrat issue, although I suppose it could be framed that way.
 
It would be nice if they did have a program for low income people to get money for heating in the winter. Not just Native Americans, but for all the citizens in North Dakota.

Quite sure that applies to reservations? Federal programs do differentiate on that basis.
  • Indian Housing's Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) - administers housing and community development programs to ensure that safe, decent, and affordable housing is available to Native American families.
  • Indian Housing Grant Programs - provide financial assistance for Indian tribes to develop affordable housing and to provide housing activities on a reservation or Indian area. Guidebooks available.
  • Housing Improvement Program (HIP) - provides home repair, renovation, replacement, and new housing grants.

At any rate and in any case, sure any earmarked funds actually make it to final destination? The Cato Institute's take, replete as it is with bias toward that tank's philosophy, did quite a write up. Other studies are equally damning, but without the condescension.

Further and regardless, all land taken from the Lakota since the Black Hills War is ill-gotten.

If you do check conditions on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation for yourself, skip the here-and-now attribution bias and instead apply logic using Catos' extensive list of - frankly - unimaginable white hubris, you might find that you are looking at a set of ongoing victims of the people and government of the USA. Biz as usual, clearly.
 
(some snipped)

If you do check conditions on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation for yourself, skip the here-and-now attribution bias and instead apply logic using Catos' extensive list of - frankly - unimaginable white hubris, you might find that you are looking at a set of ongoing victims of the people and government of the USA. Biz as usual, clearly.

The here and now attribution bias is in play for me. That's an artifact of how time works. Any remediation for past wrongs will also have to take place in the present - it's where we live.

I do tend to reject historical claims as they become more distant. I understand others may not, and may not accept any statute of limitations in the "sins of my fathers" way. My favorite example is in the Middle East, where cultures (I'm looking at you Palestinians) play the historical injustice card as a matter of course.

However, simply reminding us of past wrongs ought to be at least linked strongly to the current situation and not as an afterthought. There is no particular reason why this project should become the focal point, no inherent trespass or affront. It doesn't even rise to the level of challenging "Redskins" as a football team name. Rather, I think it's been dredged up when the original protest (against endangering the water supply) was shown to be hollow.

That's the sort of weapon it is. One can meet all the current worries, answer the challenges and make compromises, but one can never right historical wrongs. It's a trump card pulled from the deck which nothing contemporaneous can answer. Jews will always have the holocaust; African Americans slavery; and the Indians broken treaties.

Do Native Americans really want to take a huge leap backwards to the 19th century? No paved roads, no electricity, no modern medicine or Internet? I'm guessing not. But these things also evolved with the same history, including the evils. I'd certainly respect their position more if they decided to live in skin tents and hunt for food. The price we pay for civilization is civil behavior, primarily the rule of law. It's hypocritical to accept those parts of the system we like and ignore those we don't by invoking past wrongs.
 
Last edited:
The here and now attribution bias is in play for me. That's an artifact of how time works. Any remediation for past wrongs will also have to take place in the present - it's where we live.

I do tend to reject historical claims as they become more distant. I understand others may not, and may not accept any statute of limitations in the "sins of my fathers" way. My favorite example is in the Middle East, where cultures (I'm looking at you Palestinians) play the historical injustice card as a matter of course.

However, simply reminding us of past wrongs ought to be at least linked strongly to the current situation and not as an afterthought. There is no particular reason why this project should become the focal point, no inherent trespass or affront. It doesn't even rise to the level of challenging "Redskins" as a football team name. Rather, I think it's been dredged up when the original protest (against endangering the water supply) was shown to be hollow.

That's the sort of weapon it is. One can meet all the current worries, answer the challenges and make compromises, but one can never right historical wrongs. It's a trump card pulled from the deck which nothing contemporaneous can answer. Jews will always have the holocaust; African Americans slavery; and the Indians broken treaties.

Do Native Americans really want to take a huge leap backwards to the 19th century? No paved roads, no electricity, no modern medicine or Internet? I'm guessing not. But these things also evolved with the same history, including the evils. I'd certainly respect their position more if they decided to live in skin tents and hunt for food. The price we pay for civilization is civil behavior, primarily the rule of law. It's hypocritical to accept those parts of the system we like and ignore those we don't by invoking past wrongs.


Interesting view of contract law.

If you wait long enough the contract doesn't count anymore.

How long is long enough? Does the U.S. get to pick its own expiry dates? And will they apply them to themselves when it isn't to their benefit?
 
Interesting view of contract law.

If you wait long enough the contract doesn't count anymore.

How long is long enough? Does the U.S. get to pick its own expiry dates? And will they apply them to themselves when it isn't to their benefit?

It's tricky. I can't say I understand exactly what legal position you get as a hybrid-semi-sorta-sovereign nation. For example, why adjudicate in US courts when the Indians could/should be able to appeal to the UN and the International Criminal Court for relief?

But yeah, if you wait long enough then the contract doesn't count anymore. Everyone involved is dead. It's a bit harder when the parties are still alive, but in my state (Michigan) you can gain an adverse possession of property if you live there "continuously and openly" for 15 years. Title transfers to the squatter.
 
It's tricky. I can't say I understand exactly what legal position you get as a hybrid-semi-sorta-sovereign nation. For example, why adjudicate in US courts when the Indians could/should be able to appeal to the UN and the International Criminal Court for relief?

But yeah, if you wait long enough then the contract doesn't count anymore. Everyone involved is dead. It's a bit harder when the parties are still alive, but in my state (Michigan) you can gain an adverse possession of property if you live there "continuously and openly" for 15 years. Title transfers to the squatter.


Even if the property owner complains?

You know, when the Sioux went to Washington in a last ditch attempt at a legal solution for the invasion of the lands we had agreed, by contract, were theirs in perpetuity they were told, essentially, to go pound sand.

Is that how it works in Michigan for your squatters?
 
Even if the property owner complains?

You know, when the Sioux went to Washington in a last ditch attempt at a legal solution for the invasion of the lands we had agreed, by contract, were theirs in perpetuity they were told, essentially, to go pound sand.

Is that how it works in Michigan for your squatters?

No, in my example the landlord/property owner can stop the process by evicting the trespasser. But you bring up a good point. The "contract" in play is both enforced by and modified by the same courts. It seems odd to look to them as having jurisdiction when things go one way but not when they go another.
 
Uh, no. To explain it more clearly, there is more than 1 reason I despise this pipeline. I know, it's tough to follow multiple reasons, but given your sarcasm in the post below the post I quoted I have faith that you can follow the conversation. Apparently, though, you've never heard the phrase "raping our land" when referring to a process that literally drills into the land and removes resources or when something causes pollution to the surrounding lands. You know, like the entire oil process from start to finish. Though, I find you to be willfully ignorant in this case as you seem to be familiar with the oil scene and there's no one that works with oil that hasn't had someone say that to them. So, whatever your goal is, hopefully you feel you've reached it.

The pipeline is ******** that does not help the CITIZENS (I'm sad I have to make that distinction), that are not in government, at all. We see no benefit to it as a state, at all. Nothing. We gain nothing. I wouldn't want it no matter where it ran, because we've been getting oil from point A to point B with absolutely no issue. They just want to ship more of it overseas, none of this **** is even helping the U.S.A. Unless, of course, you're invested in oil.



Ah yes, so we're going back to the ******** argument of, "there are already things that can cause bad things to happen, why not make more?!" Answer: common sense.

Lets think here, do those roads help anyone other than private companies? Hmmm, I don't know. Would we need those roads if those companies weren't using them? You know what?! You're right, obviously unlike this pipeline, the only people to profit from our public roads is private companies! What a strange argument to make. Oh wait, the only people that profit from the pipelines are the ****ers building it and NOT the city, state or counties that it's going through. That makes it completely different than roads. You got me.



I don't...I can't....what?



No, it doesn't count. I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth. You've already made up your mind, and I, as someone that lives here, have made up mine. I've looked into it, spoken with actual members of the tribes, and followed this since before national news even knew it was a thing.

I have an extremely hard time believing that it would bring in $129 million. When I look at that statement the only people saying it are who? Oh yeah, people that want the pipeline built. Strange that they would say that and other sources don't say **** about it.

Even if it were double, it's not worth the risk unless you're invested in oil and don't give a **** about people drinking that water. Unless something changes, I'm out of this thread. Seeing people **** on human life to make a *********** buck on an unneeded pipeline makes my stomach sick.

There is another large Native reservation north of Standing Rock called the Three Affiliated Tribes. When everyone in the state, including Standing Rock explored for oil, this northern tribe had it, Standing Rock did not.

And this is what the oil activity in the northern half of their reservation looks like today:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArOOoSFjUhBPtAdrTDxw6vpAnplR

All those dots are wells, and all the lines are horizontal drilling legs, hundreds of them, drilled under land and water.
Of course, the tribe is paid well for the intrusion on their land.
It has radically changed the financial status of all the tribe members. Glancing at their newsletters, they are keeping one watchful eye on the oil trucks and the other on new spending projects for the betterment of their people.

Three Affiliated Tribes have publicly supported the protest only so far as to say they understand the deep concerns about the water and nearby historical lands and hope it can be resolved peacefully. For them, the oil money was a trade they were willing to make. And for people who are often struggling, probably a smart one. If their investment in the community is done well, it can bring lasting positive change to future generations.

In the end, I believe there are several motivations for the protesters there now but the one that started it was because of feeling overlooked, discounted, and disrespected during a relatively fast process of approvals. Here you have lots of people making money and benefiting from land the Sioux once called their own, while their own tribe, who will end up just downstream from a potentially hazardous project, get nothing.

Legally, the pipeline company was not required to seek tribal permission, or pay them any money, or involve them in the routing (which follows an existing natural gas pipeline btw), but I bet that now they wish they would have.
 
An uplifting development:

2,000 veterans to give protesters a break at Standing Rock

Concerned about the excessive force used against a peaceful protest,
Thousands of U.S. veterans will descend this weekend on the site in North Dakota where Native Americans have been protesting the construction of a pipeline that would threaten water and their land.

Some 2,000 veterans will join demonstrations against the Dakota Access Pipeline with the idea of giving a break to protesters who have engaged in the standoff for months. The veterans also want to call attention to the violent treatment that law enforcement has waged on the protesters, according to Veterans Stand for Standing Rock.

"We want to offer them a moment of peace and, if we can, take a little bit of pressure off," said Ashleigh Jennifer Parker, a Coast Guard veteran and spokeswoman for Veterans Stand for Standing Rock.
 
From the link: "Anybody taking supplies to Dakota Access Pipeline protesters could face a $1,000 fine."

If my math is right we could be looking at a couple million dollars. Maybe they could give the fine money to the Standing Rock tribe.

I'm sure trying to fine veterans who are on their way to provide supplies will be a newsworthy event and that is a good thing. As far as the fine goes, I'm sure there will be donations forthcoming. As to giving the money to the Standing Rock Tribe, what they want is to stop the pipeline. How do you propose they spend said money to accomplish that goal which will be more productive than vets joining the protest in a media event?
 
I'm sure trying to fine veterans who are on their way to provide supplies will be a newsworthy event and that is a good thing. As far as the fine goes, I'm sure there will be donations forthcoming. As to giving the money to the Standing Rock Tribe, what they want is to stop the pipeline. How do you propose they spend said money to accomplish that goal which will be more productive than vets joining the protest in a media event?

Lobbyists.

But vets are good too. Not as good as moms, but still good.
 
Looks like a pretty big win for the people against DAPL. Whether it will last or not is beyond me, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
 

Back
Top Bottom